Get documents about "Steinhardt
Document Sample
THE STEINHARDT SCHOOL OF CULTURE, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT 1
Personnel Policies and Procedures for Promotion, Tenure, and Review of Faculty
(http://www.nyu.edu/provost/policies.guidelines/)
This document establishes the guidelines for promotion and tenure in The Steinhardt School,
which are intended to reflect the School’s unique culture and characteristics. These School
guidelines conform to the core principles and procedures set forth in the “New York University
Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.”
(See http://www.nyu.edu/provost/pdf/Promotion%20and%20Tenure%20Guidelines.pdf )
Assumptions
The decision to grant promotion or tenure is one that is of central importance to an institution of
higher education, where the quality of education is dependent upon the strength of the quality of
the individuals appointed as members of the faculty. The duty of the tenured faculty to give
advice on decisions of tenure following a rigorous and effective review is perhaps their highest
responsibility. The process begins with their review, and it is highly dependent upon their
thoroughness, fairness and rigor. There are no absolute criteria, given that individual personnel
decisions are unique. However, the process must be one that is governed by clear, objective, and
equitable standards and procedures. At The Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human
Development faculty personnel decisions are based on consideration of quality of performance in
relation to the achievement of the goals of The Steinhardt School in research, publication,
creative work, teaching, and service.
The University Guidelines address standards as follows:
A high standard of excellence and effectiveness in teaching in the context of a research
university is a prerequisite for tenure at NYU, as is the promise of effective
contributions toward the work of the individual’s department or school and the
intellectual life of the University. Once these prerequisites are met, outstanding
scholarship or creative work in the arts is the requirement for tenure. Thus, in order to
have a reasonable prospect of gaining tenure at NYU, a Candidate must have a record of
outstanding achievement and recognition in scholarly research or creative work in the
arts together with a record of effective teaching integrally influenced by scholarship 2 .
In the absence of such a record, tenure will not be granted.
The process of evaluating a Candidate for tenure is an inquiry: Is the Candidate for
tenure among the strongest in his or her field, in comparison with other individuals at
similar points in their careers?
The inquiry for promotion to full professor is essentially the same as for a tenure
Candidate: is the Candidate for promotion among the strongest in her/his field, in
1
Approved by Steinhardt Faculty Council, December 1, 2008
2
In this document scholarship refers to research, publications, and creative works.
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 1
comparison with individuals at similar points in their careers? In addition, the
Candidate must have achieved a significant milestone or marker beyond the work
considered at the point of awarding tenure. The normal expectation will be that the new
work mark significant new scholarly or artistic achievement since the conferring of
tenure. The docket must clearly indicate which work distinguishes the Candidate’s
achievements since the last review for promotion.
It is neither desirable nor possible to define an abstract and universal standard of
measurement for tenure and promotion. Each case must be examined in detail by
making explicit comparisons, by delineating special strengths, and by acknowledging
limits or weaknesses. Context may be a criterion in judging the strength of a particular
Candidate. All these factors must be carefully discussed and weighed in reaching a
recommendation on tenure and/or promotion.
Because these discussions about whether each Candidate has achieved these high standards
of excellence must be totally frank in order to arrive at good decisions, faculty must
maintain total confidentiality.
I. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
Departments are expected to adhere to The Steinhardt School’s general guidelines. In
cases where departmental practice or policy is more explicitly detailed, or differs in
any way from the general guidelines contained herein, the department must submit a
written description to the Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs for review and
approval. The duty of the tenured faculty to give advice on promotion decisions is
among their highest responsibilities. To give weak advice to the Dean on the
assumption that the difficult decisions will be made at a later stage subverts the
principle of the review and faculty governance and is an abdication of departmental
responsibility. A report that is considered by the Dean’s Advisory Committee on
Promotion and Tenure to fall into this category will be returned to the department
with a request that the problem be corrected. An assessment must not ignore
weaknesses of the Candidate’s portfolio. Lack of perfection is not a bar to promotion
or tenure, and advocacy assessments that attempt to gloss over imperfections are
more likely to arouse suspicion than admiration. It is far more helpful to the
Candidate, and the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure to have a
balanced discussion of a Candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
A. DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES
Faculty Personnel Committee
Each department in The Steinhardt School maintains a Faculty Personnel Committee
or committees on appointments, sabbaticals, promotions, and tenure to render
informed judgments on proposed recommendations relating to faculty members in the
department. Committees on appointments, sabbaticals, promotions, and tenure may
be separate or overlapping (i.e. a personnel committee). This Faculty Personnel
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 2
Committee may be appointed by the Department Chair, or it may be elected,
following traditional practice in the department. Departments may establish ad hoc
committees for each promotion and tenure case, or they may establish a single
committee each year to review all cases. The single restriction is that for tenure
reviews only tenured faculty members may serve on the respective tenure
committees. The entire tenured faculty of a department is authorized to vote and to
make a collective recommendation for or against tenure at the rank of associate
professor. For promotion reviews, only faculty members at or above the rank being
requested in the promotion may serve on the respective promotion committee. When
a department does not have at least three tenured faculty members, an ad hoc
committee is appointed by the Dean in consultation with the Department Chair, with
membership augmented by tenured faculty of appropriate rank from other
departments. Department Chairs do not serve as members of Faculty Personnel
Committees. Department Faculty Personnel Committees may consult other faculty
members and students as necessary to have sufficient information for the review.
B. GENERAL PROCEDURES
Faculty Personnel Committee recommendations at the departmental level are part of
the decision making process in every action pertaining to faculty appointment,
sabbatical, promotion, and tenure. The department Faculty Personnel Committee
should conduct a review of the Candidate’s docket and present a summary of the
Faculty Personnel Committee’s discussion to the department faculty who are eligible
to vote in the review. The department faculty, who have reviewed the docket in
detail, should discuss and vote on the docket. The deliberations of the Faculty
Personnel Committee and the department conclude with a closed ballot vote on the
recommendation. The Faculty Personnel Committee should prepare a detailed
summary of its own deliberations and vote, as well as a summary of the deliberations
and vote of the department faculty who are eligible to vote. The recommendation of
the Faculty Personnel Committee includes the numerical vote of the Faculty
Personnel Committee and the department, which should be taken by closed ballot.
The Faculty Personnel Committee reports all definitive actions to the Department
Chair who, in turn, forwards the Faculty Personnel Committee report to the Dean
along with the Department Chair’s independent recommendation, with the application
and all supporting documents. The Department Chair or the Faculty Personnel
Committee Chair, if the Department Chair so designates, shall meet with the
Candidate and shall only indicate the overall outcome of the deliberations at the
departmental level.
In cases of promotion to full professor, if the Department Chair is not a tenured full
professor, a recommendation must be prepared by a tenured full professor in the
department/Steinhardt School in addition to the Department Chair’s recommendation.
Both recommendations will be included in what is forwarded to the Dean. In
instances where the Department Chair’s rank and tenure status are equal to that to
which the Candidate is being promoted, an additional letter is not required. If the
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 3
Department Chair is the Candidate for promotion, the report of the department
Promotion and Tenure Committee should be submitted by the Chair of that committee
directly to the Dean. The Department’s Faculty Personnel Committee may also
request that the Dean appoint an ad hoc committee with membership augmented by
tenured full professors from other departments.
The School and University have established deadlines, which should be strictly
adhered to by departments, for the collection and submission of materials for the
review. These deadlines will be determined by the Steinhardt Office of Faculty
Affairs, in accordance with University deadlines, and will be provided annually to the
academic departments.
The Dean refers the Candidate’s application for promotion and/or tenure, all
supporting documents, the recommendations received from the Faculty Personnel
Committee and Department Chair, and the assessments of the external referees for
review and assessment to the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure.
For promotion of clinical faculty, the Dean may seek advice from clinical faculty who
are at or above the rank being requested in the review.
Composition:
1. Members of the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and
Tenure shall be tenured full professors.
2. The Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure shall
be a permanent committee of the School and shall consist of six
members.
3. Half of the members shall be elected by the full faculty from each
of the three major areas within the School (Education and Applied
Psychology, Arts and Communication, and Health). Half shall be
appointed by the Dean from these three areas.
4. Members of the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and
Tenure shall serve staggered, three-year terms, with reappointment
or re-election possible after a two-year period following their
service.
5. The Chair of the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and
Tenure shall be elected each year from among second and third
year members by members of this Committee for a one-year term..
The Chair may be re-elected.
6. The Dean participates in the Dean’s Advisory Committee on
Promotion and Tenure as an ex-officio, non-voting member.
The Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure may request that the
Department Chair, the Chair of the Faculty Personnel Committee or other people with
relevant expertise attend a meeting.
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 4
The Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure shall make
recommendations to the Dean concerning the merit of the Candidates being
considered for promotion or tenure.
The Dean of the School is responsible for evaluating the docket and the
recommendation of the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure. The
Dean may solicit additional information and/or external reviews and/or letters of
evaluation on his/her own and these additional reviews shall be treated as
confidential. If this is done while the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and
Tenure is still meeting, the Dean will share these letters with the Dean’s Advisory
Committee on Promotion and Tenure. To ensure that the Dean does not solicit
evaluators already contacted by the department, the Department Chair shall be
required to provide the Dean with a list of all evaluators solicited by the department
including those who have declined to serve as evaluators.
The Dean will inform the Department Chair of his/her own proposed
recommendation to the Provost and the Department Chair will promptly inform the
Candidate of the Dean’s recommendation.
In the event the Dean’s recommendation is contrary to that of the department, the
Dean will provide the Department Chair with the reasons and the Department Chair
will then have 14 days in which to provide further information or counter-argument
before the Dean’s final recommendation is sent to the Provost.
The Dean submits his/her recommendation to the Provost, together with the
application and recommendations of the external referees, the Faculty Personnel
Committee, the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, and
Department Chair.
The Provost shall evaluate each tenure and promotion docket and recommendation
submitted by the Dean. In evaluating a promotion or tenure recommendation
submitted by the Dean, the Provost may solicit additional information and/or letters
of evaluation, and may in unusual cases appoint an ad-hoc advisory committee
composed of tenured faculty to seek further counsel. The Provost shall support or
oppose the Dean’s recommendation and will inform the Dean of his/her pending
decision. In those cases in which the Provost’s pending decision is contrary to the
recommendation of the Dean, the Provost will provide the Dean with the reasons and
give the Dean an opportunity to provide further information or counter-argument
before the Provost’s final decision. The Provost will notify the Dean of the final
decision, along with the reasons therefor if the Dean’s recommendation is
disapproved.
Upon notification of the Provost’s decision, the Dean will write to the Department
Chair and to the Candidate informing them of the decision.
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 5
In the event of a negative decision, the Candidate has the right to file a grievance in
accordance with the provisions of the University’s Faculty Grievance Procedures.
Grievance procedures are explained in The Faculty Handbook, 2008, page 56. It is
expected that the Candidate will first confer with the Department Chair or the Dean to
seek an informal resolution or an explanation of the decision. If not settled
informally, the Candidate may appeal to the Dean to convene The Steinhardt School
Faculty Grievance Committee, which is a standing committee of elected faculty
members. The Steinhardt School Faculty Grievance Committee shall not judge
professional merits of the case, but will consider the appeal based on whether a) the
procedures to reach the decision were improper or the case received inadequate
consideration; and b) the decisions violated the academic freedom of the Candidate,
in which case the burden of proof is on that person. The Steinhardt Faculty
Grievance Committee, after reviewing the case, will advise the Dean of its
recommendation. After reviewing the recommendation of the Steinhardt Faculty
Grievance Committee, the Dean will notify the Candidate of his/her final decision.
Should the decision not be satisfactory to the Candidate, he or she may appeal to the
Provost to convene the University Faculty Council Grievance Committee, an advisory
body made up of faculty from different schools within the University. It makes its
recommendations to the Provost.
C. PROMOTION, WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING TENURE REVIEW (TO
FULL PROFESSOR, OR ALL NON-TENURE TRACK PROMOTION
REVIEWS). See Section D for additional information on tenure decisions.
1. The following are excerpts from the Faculty Handbook of New
York University, 2008:
“The rank of Assistant Professor should be granted only to
those who have proved their worth as teachers and have given
evidence of character and productive scholarship. The
assistant professor should possess the maturity and attainment
in the field of scholarship or professional practice of which the
doctor’s degree is usually the testimonial.”
“The rank of Associate Professor should be granted only to
those who, in addition to all the qualifications for an assistant
professorship, have an unusual contribution to make to the
University through the excellence of their character, teaching,
productive scholarship, or other educational service.”
“The rank of Professor should be granted only after careful
consideration of the individual’s character, scholarship,
productivity, teaching ability, and reputation among peers in
his or her own field, as well as his or her capacity for inclining
students toward noteworthy attainments. It should be granted
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 6
only to men and women who have been so tested that there is
reasonable certainty of their continuing usefulness throughout
the remainder of their working years. It should never be
granted as the reward of seniority and should be reserved as a
mark of distinction in the field of scholarship and instruction.
It should never be granted as a recognition of usefulness in
administration.” (Faculty Handbook, pages 23 – 24)
2. Promotion Procedures, without a corresponding tenure
review
In matters of promotion within The Steinhardt School,
consideration of a Candidate by the faculty personnel
committee may be initiated by the Faculty Personnel
Committee itself, the Department Chair, the Candidate, or the
Dean. In cases in which promotion and tenure are being
considered and tenure action is concurrent, only tenured
faculty may vote. In cases of promotion only those at a higher
rank are eligible to participate and vote. For clinical faculty
requesting promotion, all faculty at or above the rank
requested are eligible to vote. Clinical faculty may not vote
on the promotion of tenured or tenure-track faculty. Each
Candidate for promotion is expected to complete the
University promotion application form, available online and in
the Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs, and to submit
supporting evidence and relevant materials for review.
3. External Referees for promotion
Each department develops a list of prospective external
referees for faculty who are to be considered for promotion.
The Department Chair may consult with senior program
faculty in identifying potential external referees who are
scholars with whom the Candidate has not been closely
associated. The Department Chair requests and secures a
minimum of five written recommendations from highly
qualified external referees from comparable institutions who
are at or above the rank being considered in the review for
each applicant for promotion. If the Candidate is in a field
outside that of members of the Faculty Personnel Committee,
or Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, or
if the case requires it, the Department should seek additional
external evaluations. The Department Chair furnishes the
referees with the Candidate’s curriculum vitae, selections of
published works, and other relevant documents, which may
include the Candidate’s personal statement. The
recommendations received are confidential and should be kept
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 7
in a file separate from the Candidate’s docket and made
available only to members of the Faculty Personnel
Committee, department faculty who are eligible to vote in the
review, the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and
Tenure, the Office of Academic Appointments, the Provost’s
Office, and the President. Referees are requested to comment
specifically on research, scholarship, and creative
contributions, and may also discuss other factors included in
the promotion form, e.g. teaching, publication history,
community and school outreach, citizenship, honors, and
awards, etc. (See sample letters attached).
The confidentiality of letters from outside evaluators must be
preserved. Only eligible voters in the department should be
allowed access to the letters. For both ethical and legal
reasons, neither the writers nor the content of the letters should
be communicated to the Candidate or anyone else beyond
members of the department eligible to vote, not even in
summary form. In all communications with them, writers of
letters should be assured that their letters will be held in such
confidence that, unless the law requires it, they will be seen
only by tenured members of the department, the Dean, the
Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, the
Office of Academic Appointments, the Provost’s Office and
the President.
4. Department Review for Promotion
The Department Chairs provide their respective Faculty
Personnel Committees with the following materials on each
Candidate for promotion:
a. Completed original promotion application.
b. Written statements from external referees.
c. Annual Faculty Professional Activities Reports and
peer and Department Chair evaluations.
d. Course syllabi, student evaluations of teaching, and
reports of peer observations, including formal
assessments of teaching effectiveness, including
publications and/or creative contributions.
e. Documentation in support of all other factors detailed
in the application form.
a) An analysis of the impact of the
Candidate’s scholarly work in the field
(may include but is not limited to:
citation analysis; comparative analysis
of comparable peers; reviews of
performances, exhibitions or creative
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 8
works; clinical practice expertise or
recognition; reviews of academic book
and journal articles; readers’ reviews of
unpublished books; external review
letters; assessment of colleagues,
citations in public media as well as
citation index; new internet metrics,
etc., where appropriate)
f. Any other material deemed relevant to the review.
5. Faculty Personnel Committee Recommendation for Promotion.
The Faculty Personnel Committee submits to the Department Chair
its written recommendation, signed by the members of the Faculty
Personnel Committee, on each application for promotion
considered. Each statement of recommendation includes the
following information:
a. The dates on which the Faculty Personnel Committee met
to consider the application.
b. The vote of the Faculty Personnel Committee and the
department faculty who are eligible to vote (the record of
the vote should not include the vote of individuals, but
rather the total number supporting or opposing, taken by
closed ballot).
c. Criteria for evaluation
d. Evidence considered
e. Rationale for the recommendation, addressing all of the
three criteria areas of research and scholarship, teaching
and service. The evaluation by the Faculty Personnel
Committee should not be an advocacy document and must
include a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses
of the Candidate.
6. Department Chair’s Recommendation for Promotion
The Department Chair prepares a statement of his/her own
recommendation for the applicant for promotion, and should also
include an independent and fair assessment of the Candidate’s
strengths and weaknesses in the three criteria areas of research and
scholarship, teaching, and service. The statement endorses or
opposes the recommendation of the Faculty Personnel Committee
and gives specific reasons, makes independent observations, and
offers the Department Chair’s evaluation of the Candidate.
7. Documents for Submission for Promotion
For each application for promotion the Department Chair forwards
to the Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs the following material:
a. The completed original application form with attachments
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 9
b. A minimum of five recommendations from external
referees, who have experience in comparable institutions,
including some indication of how the external referees were
selected.
c. Signed detailed recommendation of the Faculty Personnel
Committee, including the numerical vote of the Faculty
Personnel Committee, and of the department, if applicable.
d. Recommendation of the Department Chair.
8. Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure.
The Dean provides the application and supporting documentary
materials to the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and
Tenure for review and evaluation. The Dean’s Advisory
Committee on Promotion and Tenure meets to consider each of the
Candidates for promotion and prepares a signed, detailed
recommendation that includes for each Candidate the numerical
vote of the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure
and a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses. This
recommendation should address all of the three criteria areas of
research and scholarship, teaching, and service. The Dean may
attend the meetings of the Dean’s Advisory Committee on
Promotion and Tenure as an ex-officio, non-voting member.
9. Dean’s Recommendation
a. The Dean will inform the Department Chair of his/her own
proposed recommendation to the Provost.
b. The Dean sends his/her recommendation to the Provost,
with all supporting materials.
10. Concluding the Process: Reporting Back to the Candidate
The following is an excerpt from the Faculty Handbook of New
York University, 2008, p. 85:
“In order to preserve a meaningful process of peer review for
promotion and tenure, it is vital to obtain candid analysis and
opinion from qualified scholars. Therefore, it is the general policy
of New York University to treat as confidential all evaluations of
University faculty, making only such limited exceptions as are
necessary to permit informed review of promotion and tenure
decisions by the appropriate decision makers and review panels
within the University.”
In keeping with the above University policy, the following are
guidelines regarding the provision of feedback to the Candidate.
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 10
a. The Department Chair or the Faculty Personnel Committee
Chair, if the Department Chair so designates, shall meet
with the Candidate and shall only indicate the overall
outcome of the deliberations at the departmental level.
b. Upon inquiry, the Director of Faculty Affairs informs the
Department Chair of the physical location of the docket,
i.e., it is with the Dean’s Advisory Committee on
Promotion and Tenure or it is with the Dean's Office.
c. The Dean will inform the Department Chair of his/her own
proposed recommendation to the Provost and the
Department Chair will promptly inform the Candidate of
the Dean’s recommendation.
d. In the case of a Dean's recommendation contrary to that of
the department, the Dean will provide the Chair with the
reasons. The Chair will then have 14 days in which to
provide further information or counter-argument before the
Dean of the Faculty's final recommendation is made to the
Provost.
e. The Dean’s (favorable/unfavorable) recommendation is
forwarded to the Office of the Provost.
f. Once the Dean's Office receives official notification from
the Office of the Provost regarding the promotion decision,
the Dean's Office will write to the Department Chair and
Candidate to inform them of the Provost's decision.
g. It is imperative that the confidentiality that has been
assured to faculty, students, colleagues, and reviewers not
be violated.
D. TENURE REVIEW. See Section C for additional information on promotion to
higher rank without a corresponding tenure review.
1. Department Review for Tenure
The Department Chairs provide their respective Faculty Personnel
Committees with the following materials on each Candidate:
a. Completed original tenure application
b. Written statements from external referees
c. Copies of annual professional development reviews that
took place during the probationary period.
d. Course syllabi, student evaluations of teaching, and reports
of peer observations, including formal assessments of
teaching effectiveness.
e. Documentation in support of all of the other factors
detailed in the application form, including publications
and/or creative contributions. An analysis of the impact of
the Candidate’s scholarly work in the field (may include
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 11
but is not limited to: citation analysis; comparative
analysis of comparable peers; reviews of performances,
exhibitions or creative works; clinical practice expertise or
recognition; reviews of academic book and journal articles;
readers’ reviews of unpublished books; external review
letters; assessment of colleagues, citations in public media
as well as citation index; new internet metrics, etc., where
appropriate)
f. Any other material deemed relevant to the review.
2. External Referees for Tenure
Each department develops a list of prospective external
referees for Candidates who are to be considered for tenure.
The Department Chair may consult with senior program
faculty in identifying potential external referees who are
scholars with whom the Candidate has not been closely
associated. The Department Chair requests and secures a
minimum of five written recommendations from highly
qualified, tenured external referees from comparable
institutions who are at or above the rank being considered in
the review for each Candidate. If the Candidate is in a field
outside that of members of the Faculty Personnel Committee,
or Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, or
if the case requires it, the department ought to seek additional
external evaluations. The Department Chair furnishes the
referees with the Candidate’s curriculum vitae, selections of
published works, and other relevant documents, which may
include the Candidate’s personal statement or selected
teaching evaluations. The recommendations received are
confidential and should be kept in a file separate from the
Candidate’s docket and made available only to members of the
Faculty Personnel Committee and department faculty who are
eligible to vote in the review. Referees are requested to
comment specifically on research, scholarship, and creative
contributions, and may also discuss other factors included in
the promotion form, e.g. teaching, publication history,
community and school outreach, citizenship, honors, and
awards, etc. (sample letters are attached).
The confidentiality of letters from outside evaluators must be
preserved and only eligible voters in the department should be
allowed access to the letters. For both ethical and legal
reasons, neither the writers nor the content of the letters should
be communicated to the Candidate or anyone else beyond
eligible members of the department, not even in summary
form. In all communications with them, writers of letters
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 12
should be assured that their letters will be held in such
confidence and that, unless the law requires it, they will be
seen only by tenured members of the department, the Dean,
the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, the
Office of Academic Appointments, the Provost’s Office, and
the President.
3. Faculty Personnel Committee Recommendation.
The Faculty Personnel Committee submits to the Department
Chair its written recommendation, signed by the members of
the Faculty Personnel Committee, on each application for
tenure considered. Each statement of recommendation
includes the following information:
a. The date(s) on which the Faculty Personnel Committee met
to consider the application.
b. The numerical vote of the Faculty Personnel Committee
and of the eligible faculty of the department. The
Department Chair prepares a statement of his/her own
recommendation of who are eligible to vote (the record of
the vote should not include the vote of individuals, but
rather the total number supporting or opposing, taken by
closed ballot).
c. Criteria for evaluation
d. Evidence considered
e. Rationale for the recommendation, addressing all of the
three criteria areas of research and scholarship, teaching
and service. The evaluation by the Faculty Personnel
Committee should not be an advocacy document and must
include a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses
of the Candidate.
4. Department Chair’s Recommendation for Tenure
The Department Chair’s evaluation of the Candidate for tenure
should also include an independent and fair assessment of the
Candidate’s strengths and weaknesses in the three criteria
areas of research and scholarship, teaching and service. The
statement endorses or opposes the recommendation of the
Faculty Personnel Committee and gives specific reasons,
makes independent observations, and offers the Department
Chair’s evaluation of the Candidate
5. Documents for Submission for Tenure
For each application for tenure the Department Chair forwards to
the Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs the following material:
a. The completed original application form with attachments.
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 13
b. A minimum of five recommendations from external
referees, including some indication of how the external
referees were selected. Letters should be from people who
are not personally or professionally affiliated with the
Candidate, from comparable institutions, are tenured and at
or above the rank being considered in the review.
c. Signed detailed recommendation of the Faculty Personnel
Committee, including the numerical vote of the Faculty
Personnel Committee, and of the department, if applicable.
d. Recommendation of the Department Chair.
6. Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure.
The Dean provides the application and supporting documentary
materials to the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and
Tenure for review and evaluation. The Dean’s Advisory
Committee on Promotion and Tenure meets to consider each of the
Candidates for tenure and conducts a closed ballot vote to inform
the recommendation. The Dean’s Advisory Committee on
Promotion and Tenure prepares a signed, detailed recommendation
that includes for each Candidate a record of the numerical vote and
a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses. This
recommendation should address all of the three criteria areas of
research and scholarship, teaching, and service. The Dean may
attend the meetings of the Dean’s Advisory Committee on
Promotion and Tenure, as a non-voting member.
7. Dean’s Recommendation
a. The Dean will inform the Department Chair his/her own
proposed recommendation to the Provost.
b. The Dean sends his/her recommendation on tenure to the
Provost, with all supporting information.
8. Concluding the Process: Reporting Back to the Candidate
The following is an excerpt from the Faculty Handbook of New
York University, 2008, p. 85:
“In order to preserve a meaningful process of peer review for
promotion and tenure, it is vital to obtain candid analysis and
opinion from qualified scholars. Therefore, it is the general policy
of New York University to treat as confidential all evaluations of
University faculty, making only such limited exceptions as are
necessary to permit informed review of promotion and tenure
decisions by the appropriate decision makers and review panels
within the University.”
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 14
In keeping with the above University policy, the following are
guidelines regarding the provision of feedback to the Candidate.
a. The Department Chair or the Faculty Personnel Committee
Chair, if the Department Chair so designates, shall meet
with the Candidate and shall only indicate the overall
outcome of the deliberations at the departmental level.
b. Upon inquiry, the Director of Faculty Affairs informs the
Department Chair of the physical location of the docket,
i.e., it is with the Dean’s Advisory Committee on
Promotion and Tenure or it is with the Dean's Office.
c. The Dean will inform the Department Chair of his/her own
proposed recommendation to the Provost and the
Department Chair will promptly inform the Candidate of
the Dean’s recommendation.
d. In the case of a Dean's recommendation contrary to that of
the department, the Dean will provide the Chair with the
reasons. The Chair will then have 14 days in which to
provide further information or counter-argument before the
Dean of the Faculty's final recommendation is made to the
Provost.
e. The Dean’s (favorable/unfavorable) recommendation is
forwarded to the Office of the Provost.
f. Once the Dean's Office receives official notification from
the Office of the Provost regarding the tenure decision, the
Dean's Office will write to the Department Chair and
Candidate and inform them of the Provost's decision.
It is imperative that the confidentiality that has been assured to faculty,
students, colleagues, and reviewers not be violated.
E. NOTICE OF MANDATORY TENURE REVIEW
The tenure application review normally occurs in the year preceding a
Candidate’s final non-tenure or probationary year, and a definitive
recommendation on tenure must be made by the Dean. This timing makes
possible a year’s notice of termination to those in their terminal year who are not
awarded tenure status. The Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs provides each
department with a list of its Candidates for whom tenure and/or promotion
recommendations are required.
F. ACCELERATION OF SCHEDULE FOR TENURE REVIEW
Proposals for early promotion and tenure must be considered extraordinary
actions. Indeed, it is not normally in the best interest of a Candidate or of the
institution to propose Candidates for promotion and/or tenure ahead of schedule
unless the case is very well justified. The Dean should be consulted prior to the
preparation of an early case. The best reason for proposing early consideration is a
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 15
record of extraordinary accomplishment that can be readily distinguished from
strong cases. It should be noted that external experts whose evaluation of the
Candidate are sought in these cases must be asked to comment specifically on the
special grounds for an early decision. Department Chairs and Faculty Personnel
Committees must also specifically address this issue. However, even with these
affirmative recommendations, the Dean will not recommend early tenure unless
the case is extraordinary and compelling, particularly in relation to the already
high expectations for Candidates reviewed under the usual schedule.
G. NEW APPOINTMENTS WITH TENURE
In the case of new appointments to tenure, the report must include a summary of
the recommendations of the Search Committee and must identify the external
referees consulted by the department in the search process, indicating which were
selected by the Candidate and which were selected by the department. The
Search Committee should seek at least five external referee letters (at least three
not recommended by the Candidate) from suitable evaluators, some of whom may
have been sought as part of the search process, but at least two of whom would
need to answer all of the relevant questions of the tenure review process as
outlined here (a sample letter to external referees is attached). The report may
also include letters from other Search Committee referees as supplemental
materials to the docket. The docket for new appointments with tenure must
include a description of the Candidate’s teaching, evidence of excellence, and an
indication of how the Candidate will meet the teaching needs of the department.
The Candidate should address teaching in his or her personal statement and
submit teaching evaluations from their current institution. If evaluations are not
available, alternative documentation must be provided by the Chair of the Search
Committee.
II. ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR TENURE-TRACK
FACULTY
Each year, the Faculty Personnel Committee, or a subcommittee thereof, should
review the annual Faculty Professional Activities Report submitted by each
member of the tenure track faculty, and consider evidence of accomplishment in
the three areas of research and scholarship, teaching and service. The
Committee’s review should also include a discussion about where the Faculty
Member should focus efforts in order to provide feedback that will lead to a
record of excellence in all three areas of performance in the years preceding
tenure. The Faculty Personnel Committee will summarize its discussion and
recommendations in Professional Development Report. This Report is forwarded
to the Department Chair for reaction and his/her recommendation. The
Department Chair confers with the Faculty Member under review about the
Faculty Personnel Committee’s evaluation, as well as about the Department
Chair’s own evaluation. The Department Chair sends copies of the Faculty
Personnel Committee’s Professional Development Report and his/her
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 16
recommendation to the Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs for review by the
deans. Copies are sent to the Faculty Member under consideration. The Dean
reviews each Professional Development Report. The Dean provides a written
report on the professional development of untenured faculty only at the third-year
review (see below).
The annual Professional Development Report prepared by the department-based
Faculty Personnel Committee is based upon a thorough review of the annual
Faculty Professional Activities Report and supporting evidence. This should
include a review of the publications or creative productions for that year, student
evaluations, and peer observations of teaching that are conducted annually by a
senior member of the department. The Professional Development Report should
indicate specifically the strengths and weaknesses of the Faculty Member under
consideration in relation to the school and department criteria. Where there are
weaknesses, the Faculty Personnel Committee suggests courses of action to
improve performance which are conveyed to the Faculty Member in writing by
the Department Chair and Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs. The Department
Chair, the Dean, or the Faculty Member may request a meeting to discuss the
outcome of the annual review. Each subsequent Professional Development
Report reviews the current Faculty Professional Activities Report and all previous
annual statements, with special attention to the implementation of
recommendations for improvement. Evidence of improvement is cited along with
continued need for development. Again, where warranted, specific activities
designed to improve performance are suggested by the Department Chair and/or
the Dean to the Faculty Member.
III. THIRD YEAR REVIEW
Process
Probationary assistant and associate professors, will be subject to a formal third year
review of their performance (in lieu of the annual professional development review)
to determine whether they should be reappointed or be given notice of termination.
The third year review will follow the same procedural steps as the annual professional
development review, with the exception that the review should be more
comprehensive. Faculty should submit an updated curriculum vitae, a personal
statement, a copy of all publications, teaching evaluations, and copies of annual peer
observations of teaching to the Department Chair and Faculty Personnel Committee.
Departments may choose to collect additional information (i.e. external reviews) as
long as the process is consistent for all untenured faculty in the department and the
Office of Faculty Affairs has been informed in writing of departmental practice. The
Department Chair and Faculty Personnel Committee will submit a report to the Dean
by February 1 recommending continuation or termination of probationary service.
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 17
SAMPLE SOLICITATION LETTERS
TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEW
Dear xxxx:
XX, currently an Assistant Professor in the XX department, is being considered for promotion
<with or without tenure>. Because of your knowledge of the field, we would very much
appreciate your evaluation of xx research. I am enclosing Professor XX's curriculum vitae with
this letter. Also enclosed are copies of xx work. It will be of particular value to us if you
provided a candid assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Professor XX's work with
respect to scholarly research, originality, scope, and significance.
We also request an explicit comparison of xx work with that of the most prominent individuals
working in the same field who are at comparable points in their careers. Any additional
comments you consider pertinent would be welcome. If you have knowledge of Professor XX's
teaching ability or service to the university and/or the professional community, we would
appreciate your commentary on these matters as well. Please include in your letter a statement of
how long and in what specific capacities you have known the Candidate.
Finally, we would appreciate your judgment of whether or not Professor XX would be
considered a strong Candidate for promotion <and tenure> in other leading departments in the
field.
We will need your letter within four weeks, sooner if possible. The University’s procedures also
require that with your letter you forward to me a hard copy of a current curriculum vitae or, if it
is more convenient, a url pointer to your vita.
My assistant, XX, will contact you via email within a week to see if you have any questions and
to ascertain if you will be able to help us. Let me assure you that your letter will be kept
confidential. It will be available only to the tenured professors of this department, and
appropriate decision makers and review panels within the University, to the extent allowed by
law.
Thank you for generously assisting us. I realize this is a time-consuming task, but, as you know,
it is a critical element of the academic process of peer review.
Sincerely,
XXXX
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 18
SAMPLE SOLICITATION LETTER, EXTERNAL SENIOR APPOINTMENT
Dear xxxx:
Professor X of the University West at East is being considered for a tenured appointment at the
rank of full professor in the XX department. Because of your knowledge of the field, we would
very much appreciate your evaluation of his/her research. I am enclosing Professor X's
curriculum vitae with this letter. Also enclosed are copies of his/her work. It will be of particular
value to us if you provided a candid assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Professor X's
research with respect to intellectual quality, originality, scope, and significance. We also request
an explicit comparison of her work with that of the most prominent individuals working in the
same field who are at comparable points in their careers. Any additional comments you consider
pertinent would be welcome. If you have knowledge of Professor X's teaching ability or service
to the university and/or the professional community, we would appreciate your comments on
these matters as well. Please indicate in your letter how long and in what specific capacities you
have known Professor X.
Finally, we would appreciate your judgment of whether or not Professor X would be considered
a strong Candidate for appointment as a full professor in other leading departments in the field.
We will need your letter within four weeks, sooner if possible.
The University’s procedures also require that with your letter you forward to me a hard copy of a
current curriculum vitae or, if it is more convenient, a url pointer to your vita.
My assistant, XX, will contact you via email within a week to see if you have any questions and
to ascertain if you will be able to help us. Let me assure you that your letter will be kept
confidential. It will be available only to the tenured professors of this department, and
appropriate decision makers and review panels within the University, to the extent allowed by
law.
Thank you for generously assisting us. I realize this is a time-consuming task, but, as you know,
it is a critical element of the academic process of peer review.
Sincerely,
XXXX
September 2009: cdb
Pending University Faculty Senators’ Council and Provostial Approval Page 19
